Total winner. No-brainer RF lens

Hoka Hey wrote:

forpetessake wrote:

Looks a bit softer than the EF 35/2, but it also can be a strong AA filter.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1224&Camera=1221&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=824&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Different camera resolutions. Try some of the other camera options with the f2.

Correct, not apples to apples.

Plus, I've had and used the 35/2. I hate to blanket a lens with a "softer" or "sharper" label - because more than resolution under flat lighting contributes to percieved sharpness. They ultimately aren't wildly different from a contrast and resolution standpoint, but I do have a bit more confidence in bad light with the RF and shooting wide open (or close to it).

Oldwino wrote:

LeicaBOSS wrote:

Remember - I own that silly Leica Summicron M ASPH, which for many kinds of photography would be considered a complete joke from a technical standpoint. It also makes intensely beautiful images for me. Which point of view is correct?

Yup. This lens (Canon RF 35) reminds me very much of my old Leica Summaron 35/2.8. Has the same sort of smooth/sharp look to it, except the Canon has some aspherical elements in it, which makes the bokeh more nervous. To my eyes, it has 35mm-lens-bokeh, which is never that smooth anyway.

But overall, I like the lens. I've only has it for few days, but I like the way it renders. I like the way it makes my subjects look good. It's got a nice touch of distortion. It is interesting, rather than perfect and sterile and boring.

One day soon, I'll figure out which distances and apertures I like most. Same with any lens. I'll figure that out by shooting with the lens in a variety of conditions. I can promise you all, I won't be shooting any brick walls, and I won't be stressing out over the corners.

Everything in lens design is a trade off. If you (general "you", not you specifically LeicaBOSS) want small and light, you're going to have to put up with a few more aberrations. If you want "perfect", the lens is going to be big and heavy to hold all that glass needed to correct every last drop of CA, etc. But then you'll hate carrying around all that weight. At least I do. And the price, let's not forget the price!

I think here you are describing the RF 50mm which most seem to think is an excellent lens but is heavy and expensive.

I guess if your "photography" is all about numbers and statistics and corners, the weight penalty is a small price too pay. Me, I'll take some nice looking flaws over being a sherpa any day.

Recently retired with more time to fiddle with photography, I have been traveling with groups of travelers and have been putting together Blurb books at the end of each trip. I have discovered that you can do a lot with an EOS-M5 and the limited set of native lenses that are available for that platform.  I have now moved to the EOS-R for the next trip and have been considering this lens as somewhat equivalent to the 22mm I have for the "M5" (fast and small). I am looking for something that can do a good job yet be relatively small and light.

Non photographers are not nearly as demanding. That doesn't mean you can produce bad work but I can sacrifice some sharpness in the corners w/o loosing the impact of the photo as a documentary memory.

I hope we see a nice, compact 50/1.4 in the RF mount someday. Maybe it will remind me of my 1st generation Summilux, another lens of great beauty that's full of flaws. One can hope...

Hoka Hey wrote:

J A C S wrote:

Hoka Hey wrote:

1. Is there a significantly better 35mm AF FF lens at this size and price point?

Sure, the 35LII

Much larger and 3 times as much. Even so, the 35Lii doesn’t have much better bokeh for pines trees in the distance and similar OOF Objects. PF is better on 35Lii .

Joe

You have to stick the adapter on it so it will be larger and heavier still. If weight and size are your hot buttons, the 35/1.4's aren't going to be real attractive solutions IMO.  I own the 35 1.4 I and will probably sell it eventually.

J A C S wrote:

David Hull wrote:

Hoka Hey wrote:

J A C S wrote:

Hoka Hey wrote:

1. Is there a significantly better 35mm AF FF lens at this size and price point?

Sure, the 35LII

Much larger and 3 times as much. Even so, the 35Lii doesn’t have much better bokeh for pines trees in the distance and similar OOF Objects. PF is better on 35Lii .

Joe

You have to stick the adapter on it so it will be larger and heavier still. If weight and size are your hot buttons, the 35/1.4's aren't going to be real attractive solutions IMO. I own the 35 1.4 I and will probably sell it eventually.

My phone is even smaller.

Yep, got one of those too, sometimes I use it as a phone even.

LensSodomist wrote:

LMOE wrote:

It's a 'meh' lens. Nice, but has its issues. No better, no worse than other similar primes. Priced right at $450-$500 USD. I think many are overly excited about this lens at is the only one that is small and a good "fit" with the current R series bodies. Shame there are no decent R bodies - yet.

What other non-L wide/mid prime has these attributes?:

1. Fairly sharp wide open.
2. IS
3. Nearly as good as Canon 35L f1.4 Mark I
4. Very good edge-to-edge sharpness across all f-stops
5. L like rendition
6. L like bokeh
7. It's better than the EF 50L in most cases

I've owned all the EF non-L wide/mid primes and this one stands out head and shoulders.

I think you're right that this poster has never used the lens, but the other lens that stands out as having all the things you suggested is the EF 35mm f2 is.  Have you owned that one? Do you find the RF to be better?  I'm legitimately asking the question, no sarcasm.

David Hull wrote:

J A C S wrote:

David Hull wrote:

Hoka Hey wrote:

J A C S wrote:

Hoka Hey wrote:

1. Is there a significantly better 35mm AF FF lens at this size and price point?

Sure, the 35LII

Much larger and 3 times as much. Even so, the 35Lii doesn’t have much better bokeh for pines trees in the distance and similar OOF Objects. PF is better on 35Lii .

Joe

You have to stick the adapter on it so it will be larger and heavier still. If weight and size are your hot buttons, the 35/1.4's aren't going to be real attractive solutions IMO. I own the 35 1.4 I and will probably sell it eventually.

My phone is even smaller.

Yep, got one of those too, sometimes I use it as a phone even.

Oh, can you really do that… i have to try that sometime LoL 

I have not had the RF 35mm f1.8 very long and have not really owned a lens with that focal length, with the exception of the EF-S 24mm, which I primarily used for team shots in sports.  That being said, I like this lens and focal length and am getting more comfortable using it.  Low light performance seems really good and the color rendition is good as well.